Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

In order to avoid just another thread with fragmented opinions pro and contra, here is my challenge: use this discussion to construct a synthesis... come up with a coherent helicopter view story as to what you think happened, confined to a few pages maximum (pref. in one post). The topic is not when the battle of El-Alamein happened and other non-controversial trivia, this discussion is about motives of the main actors, geo-strategy and the story behind the screen. The idea is to adapt your personal narrative while our insight grows. Here is my initial version 1.0 (for the moment confined to WW2) as a kick-off:

Hitler admired Britain. He sincerely thought that the English were on the same level as the Germans (a colossal blunder). In his phantasy he had plans to extend and prolongue European rule. Hitler wanted colonies or Lebensraum as he called it in the East and he was perfectly willing to let Britain keep the 25% of the planet it already had acquired as their Lebensraum. He was even prepared to deliver troops in the support of the Empire. Hitler never wanted to attack Britain. It was sheer stupidity of Chamberlain to hand out a blanque cheque to the Poles that whatever they would do the Brits would come to their aid in case of an attack by Germany. What Chamberlain should have done was put pressure on the Poles to make concessions in the Danzig case. Danzig was a 97% German city and wanted to return to the Reich. But the Poles refused to cooperate with the British garantee in their pocket. Then there was increased border tension and next the Germans decided to take back what they considered theirs after they had made an agreement with the Soviets. Because of the garantee Britain (and France) declared war on Germany. But still not everything was lost because neither Britain nor France did anything with the war declaration ('Phoney War'/'Drole the Guerre') much to the delight of the Germans who had very bad memories from a 2-front war during WW1. However it was Winston Churchill, this prototypical drunken half-Jewish/American hooligan mystery meat (bribed by Jewish financial circles from London since the mid-thirties) who really expanded a local conflict into WW2. It was him who planned the invasion of Norway in 1940 in order to cut vital iron ore supply lines from Sweden to Germany who forced the Germans to invade Norway and Benelux and France. And even during the invasion of France he let the Brits escape (the English lied this event into the 'miracle of Duinkerken') because he was interested in peace with Britain so he had his hands free to 'stamp out Jewish communism' in the East. And on the eve of the invasion of Russia it was Rudolf Hess who made this desperate flight to Britain, obviously NOT to Churchill (who was doing the bidding of the Jews anyway) but to this Duke who could expected to be more sympathetic to peace with Germany, like many others in the British establishment who feared for the survival of the Empire. It is very likely that Germany would have offered pulling back from Western Europe in exchange for peace and free hand in the East. It was Gorbatchov with his unexpected offer to release Hess from Spandau that caused alarm within Anglo circles because if Hess would leave prison alive one of the biggest WW2 lies would have been made public. That is why the Brits were forced to 'suicide' Hess. But WW2 was never over Poland. Britain never declared war on the USSR, who had done exactly the same thing as Germany, namely swallowing half of Poland. Instead they allied themselves with the biggest bunch of mass-murderers of history to defeat Germany. Germany had expelled the Jews from Germany because they did not want to be controlled, read bolshevized by them like they had done to Russia. But the Jews who already controlled London and Washington did not like that and organized resistence. The allies won and in the end they had no choice but to invent the 'holocaust' to whitewash their own crimes.

There is no end to Anglo perfidy.

In the near future the revisionist story above is going to replace to old lies that Germany wanted to conquer the world but that luckily there were a bunch of notoriously good guys around to prevent that. And in the hour of victory, as a sort of bonus, they had accidently 'discovered' that the Germans had a little extermination program going on during the war years, conveniently distracting from the Anglo destruction of German cities (the only holocaust that really happened not counting in the holomodor and other Soviet crimes). Fortunately in the end the good guys prevailed. In reality however, the not so good guys, the Jews, prevailed and in their slipstream the Americans, our 'liberators' as you will remember. The biggest losers were the Europeans. Obviously the Germans, but certainly also the Eastern Europeans who got enslaved by Bolshevism, courtesy Churchill. And of course Britain as well, which lost its empire. Only because they let an half-american traitor control their government.

And since my opponents here consistently have shown difficulties to construct a story line longer than two sentences I will help them a bit with this seed:

Official story v1.0; picture an Anglo guy chewing on gum while saying: Well you see, we have Brits, Yanks, Frogs and Russians basically minding their own business, while all over sudden these darned Krauts tried to conquer the whole world twice. Today Germany, tomorrow ze wurld, you know what I am saying? The second time they killed 6 million Joos in gas chambers and stuff for no reason at all! Can you imagine that? Fortunately the Allies sticked together and taught those evil Germans a lesson. Twice.

[color="Navy"]France and Britain put pressure on the Poles to allow the Russian army to enter Poland as a buffer to stop Hitler attacking. Poland refused as it had only concluded its war with Russia in 1924. You can read this in AJP Taylor's
The Origins of the Second World War.

Are you saying that Britain and France were not surprised by the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement?
Are you saying that Poland welcomed the Russian invasion?
Could you give us the page number where Taylor says this?

Quote:

This is a common lie from holocaust deniers. In May 1933, the Nazi Party won the local elections in the city. However, they received only 37% percent of the vote, less than the two-thirds required by the League of Nations to change the Constitution of the Free City of Danzig. Go read some history!

Correct and the Soviets moved into Poland as a buffer against Germany exactly as was offered to them by the British and French, who were sitting in the next room, because Poland refused.

Fascinating.

Quote:

France and Britain ( and South Africa, Canada, Australia & New Zealand mobilised) and France attacked Germany and advanced 8 kilometres into Germany in the Saar Offensive waiting for mobilisation to supply reserves.

Can somebody explain to Matthew the difference between mobilisation and war?
And could Matthew explain the significance to us of 'mobilising' troops on the other side of the war for a conflict fought out in Poland?

From the Wikipedia entry about the Phoney War: While most of the German army was engaged in Poland, a much smaller German force manned the Siegfried Line, their fortified defensive line along the French border. At the Maginot Line on the other side of the border, British and French troops stood facing them, but there were only some local, minor skirmishes. The British Royal Air Force dropped propaganda leaflets on Germany and the first Canadian troops stepped ashore in Britain, while western Europe was in a strange calm for seven months.

They basically confirm my original thesis, namely that there was no war in the west.

Austria-Hungary started the First world war, and Japan started the Second. Neither is in your "starters" list, but this is your mistake, not mine. It could also be argued that Nazi Germany Started the second world war, though.

No I didn't. I simply supplied information from AJP Taylor's Origins of the Second World War and other various books from my library. I note, you have left Spain, Serbia and the Austro Hungarian Empire off your list of countries that started ( or caused) the world wars. You really need to do some basic reading in history before posting again. Let me quickly address your other errors.

1) Hitler never wanted to attack BritainHe must have been a terrible corporal in WW1 when he attacked the British at Ypres! He even got a medal from a Jewish German officer for his efforts.

2) It was sheer stupidity of Chamberlain to hand out a blanque cheque to the Poles Have you ever heard of the country called France? If so why do Holocaust Deniers always forget it was Britain and France that guaranteed the Polish border. I assume because they don't read any books.

3) But the Poles refused to cooperate with the British garantee in their pocketI have already pointed out that the Nazis only received 37% of the vote at Danzig elections and the League of Nations required a two third majority to change Danzigs status. Poland had no reason to pay any attention to the Nazis at all. Hitler simply wanted to expand east as he stated in Mein Kampf.

4) However it was Winston Churchill, this prototypical drunken half-Jewish/American hooligan mystery meat (bribed by Jewish financial circles) This is a myth started by David Irving that has been debunked. Churchill had no jewish background.

5) Churchill (who was doing the bidding of the Jews anyway)Churchill wasn't Prime Minister when England declared war on Germany. Please read a basic history book before posting again.

6) It was Gorbatchov (sic) with his unexpected offer to release Hess from Spandau that caused alarm within Anglo circles because if Hess would leave prison alive one of the biggest WW2 lies would have been made publicWhat? that Hess had chronic schizophrenia? Are you going to pretend Hitler "knew" Hess's plans? Please provide any evidence of this and also read how Hitler "cried out like an animal" when he was informed what Hess had done in Speer's book.

7) But WW2 was never over PolandWW2 started in Poland

8) Britain never declared war on the USSR, who had done exactly the same thing as Germany, namely swallowing half of PolandThat's because France and Britain offered Russia to move into Poland four days before the Nazi-Soviet pact. Poland refused as they had been at war with Russia up until 1924. Please read AJP Taylor's Origins of the Second World War for information that you seem unaware of.

9) Germany had expelled the Jews from Germany because they did not want to be controlled, read bolshevized by them like they had done to RussiaYou are an entry-level Holocaust Denier who hasn't read very much. Hitler banned the Commmunist Party in 1933. He started mass genocide of Jews in early 1942 for a totally different reason. Like all Holocaust Deniers, you are unable to explain where these missing Jews went.

But the idea is to come up with a short motivation to support your answer.

Motivation, as in what, exactly? That Austria-Hungary issued utterly unreasonable demands to Serbia in 1914, then declared war when Serbia refused, leading to a chain reaction of defensive alliances being activated?

What else? Japanese invaded China in 1937 (fighting began six years earlier) in an effort for an "East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", aka Japanese empire to replace European and American ones in the Pacific area. This led into a broad war in the Pacific, which was inherently connected to the war in Europe and North Africa. Nazi false flag operation on the Polish border and a subsequent invasion, that also led to a chain reaction of defensive alliances. What's there to write, all of this is pretty much indisputable.

Motivation, as in what, exactly? That Austria-Hungary issued utterly unreasonable demands to Serbia in 1914, then declared war when Serbia refused, leading to a chain reaction of defensive alliances being activated?

... after the throne successor was killed by a Serb, I would like to add. But I accept the notion of "chain reaction of defensive alliances being activated".

Quote:

What else? Japanese invaded China in 1937 (fighting began six years earlier) in an effort for an "East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere", aka Japanese empire to replace European and American ones in the Pacific area. This led into a broad war in the Pacific, which was inherently connected to the war in Europe and North Africa.

To be honoust, the actions of the Japanese before Pearl Harbor had escaped my perfidious Euro-centric mindset for a moment. But I nevertheless fail to see that the Japanese intended a world war (but you don't claim that either). But I also fail to see that the september 1939 rollback towards pre-WW1 situation in Poland (meaning Poland exit) was an intentional first step towards a world war.

Quote:

Nazi false flag operation on the Polish border and a subsequent invasion, that also led to a chain reaction of defensive alliances. What's there to write, all of this is pretty much indisputable.

Was it really all 'false flag operations'? Is it really true that the Germans in Poland were not harassad?

... after the throne successor was killed by a Serb, I would like to add.

So? He wasn't an agent of a Serbian state, nor did he intend to benefit it. He was an activist for independent Bosnia.

Quote:

To be honoust, the actions of the Japanese before Pearl Harbor had escaped my perfidious Euro-centric mindset for a moment. But I nevertheless fail to see that the Japanese intended a world war (but you don't claim that either). But I also fail to see that the september 1939 rollback towards pre-WW1 situation in Poland (meaning Poland exit) was an intentional first step towards a world war.

Well, if you go by intent, Hitler didn't intend to fight with UK and France either, especially not already in 1939. The plan was to fight UK in 1945 or even later, if it even became necessary. German intentions were solely focused on expanding eastwards, with the war in the west being a necessary evil. Getting back at France might have been an afterthought, but a war with UK was intended to be avoided if at all possible.

Quote:

Was it really all 'false flag operations'?

Yes. Or are you perhaps claiming that the Poles really did send commandos on a cross-border raid to take some unimportant radio stations just to send some propaganda messages and that the Wehrmacht was just coincidentally prepared to invade at that same moment, whereas the Polish army wasn't mobilized for an adequate defense?

Quote:

Is it really true that the Germans in Poland were not harassad?

A straw man argument and a red herring in one. Bravo.

Harassment of individuals is a good reason for a major diplomatic dispute, but not war.

Are you saying that Britain and France were not surprised by the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement?

They were suprised

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator

Are you saying that Poland welcomed the Russian invasion?

No Poland did not welcome the Nazi and Russian invasion

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator

Could you give us the page number where Taylor says this?

Pages 313 "On 21 August the French lost patience. They decided to ignore the Polish refusal and go ahead, hoping the commit the Poles willy-nilly. Doumenc, the head of the military mission in Moscow was instructed to give an "an affirmitive answer in principle to the Russian question (that Russian troops enter Poland as a buffer against germany)

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator

Has been dealt with by Little Gray Rabbit[/url].

Little Grey Rabbit not only didn't give a citation but has a party called "Poles" ( in Poland?). Even more funny is that if the figures Little Grey Rabbit gave were correct then Danzig would have been handed over to Germany under the league of Nations 2/3 pleblicite majority ruling and Germany would not have invaded. ( You didn't think that through did you?)

Three months ago Little grey Rabbit said the gas chambers in Auschwitz were bakeries as Little Grey Rabbit, like you, is a Holocaust Denier.

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator

Can somebody explain to Matthew the difference between mobilisation and war?

France moved 8 kilometres into German territory during the Phoney war. Do you call that mobilisation? sending troops into another country? Would you like me to explain the basics to you? Someone has to.

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator

And could Matthew explain the significance to us of 'mobilising' troops on the other side of the war for a conflict fought out in Poland?

On the other side of the "war"? I assume you mean "world". I assume you are unaware that Australia took New Guinea (our next door neighbour) from Germany who sank our ships to hurt our supply of materials to England in 1918 and I assume you don't understand that the head of Australian Armed forces is the regent of England. Australia mobilised because we fight with Britain, as does Canada, New Zealand etc. Have you ever heard of the first world war? May I suggest you read about German searaiders and Australia.

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator

From the Wikipedia entry about the Phoney War: While most of the German army was engaged in Poland, a much smaller German force manned the Siegfried Line, their fortified defensive line along the French border. At the Maginot Line on the other side of the border, British and French troops stood facing them, but there were only some local, minor skirmishes. The British Royal Air Force dropped propaganda leaflets on Germany and the first Canadian troops stepped ashore in Britain, while western Europe was in a strange calm for seven months.

They basically confirm my original thesis, namely that there was no war in the west.

Yes I can see that you have gathered your little knowledge only from Wikipedia. Its a pity you don't even know how to use wikipedia.
Let me help you with basic research...( even on Wikipedia!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive

A 8 kilometre invasion into Germany by France is an invasion. France sent eleven divisions across the German border. The French advanced aggressively, but were stalled at the Sigfried Line. It was in these battles that Stukas were first used against France. Do you still call this just mobilisation?

The metallic debris and chemical residue appear to be consistent with a type of torpedo made in Germany, indicating the North may have been trying to disguise its involvement by avoiding arms made by allies China and Russia, Yonhap quoted the official as saying.

So, probably Germany again.

But just to be on the safe side, when was that German produced submarine operated by Israel last seen?

So the story changes and now that the UN is asking for a look, the US is admitting the torpedo debris from the sinking comes from a GERMAN torpedo, but we are supposed to somehow assume that a German torpedo still points the finger of blame at North Korea.

Pop Quiz, students; what nation gets their submarines (for free) from Germany and has a long history of using false flag dirty tricks to trick other nations into wars?

__________________"The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age." -Carl Sagan"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."-Terry Pratchett

Actually, I would say that WW1 was started by a mentality and general international stance.

The universal doctrine was to strike early and fast, before the enemy can mobilize. Basically to start with a devastating sucker-punch. That wasn't just for Germany and Austria, but really everybody. It has even been described as a "Cult Of The Offensive."

Also, since mobilization was a very disruptive thing to do, it was pretty much understood that if you do it, you use it. A lot of countries didn't even have any plans for a partial mobilization or just going on defensive allert so to speak or anything. It was an already loaded and aimed cannon, so to speak, with all that remained to be done being to pull the rope.

Every country had mobilization plans and attack plans in advance, and the doctrine to basically pull the trigger on that before the enemy can pull the trigger on his.

As you can imagine, that wasn't very conducive to diplomacy. (Not to mention that war and military threat were considered an integral part of diplomacy at the time. Whereas nowadays going "sign here or we shoot" at a neighbouring country would be considered awfully bad form, back then it was ok if you could get away with it.) But anyway, you didn't have time to sit and posture too long, lest the enemy starts his mobilization before you and catches _you_ with your pants down. Ultimatum and immediately attack was the normal doctrine for everyone.

Also, it wasn't just a case of alliances as such, but also a great game where each superpower actively countered and tried to contain, or even backstab, every other superpower. The whole 19'th century was full of examples of just that. E.g., England and France would prop the Ottomans just to counter the Russians, or England would lend its threat to help Japan smack the Russians to contain a perceived danger of Russian expansion in Asia. And then backstabbed Japan at the peace conference.

Serbia happened to be not even important as such, but something that Russia wanted and more importantly something that Russia backed militarily. So a lot of the politics and war plans of Germany and Austria had to do with just not letting Russia get it. Russia's having started a massive modernization of its army in IIRC 1912 just made it a bigger target. Both Germany and Austria were just itching to sucker punch it before it finishes that. (And before that sounds too bad, Britain and France would have punched it instead, if Germany and Austria didn't. _Everyone_ had that great game mentality, and nobody wanted a too powerful Russia.)

It's also often forgotten that WW1 was pretty much a continuation of the Balkan Wars. That area was already a powder keg, and Serbia was already trying to become an empire in the region. Being backed by Russia just made it bolder. Although the Russians did back the more peaceful government of Pasic, the military faction was still basically chest thumping and posturing at every country around, and basically trying to establish Serbia as a new world-class a-hole.

A lot of that posturing was aimed at Austro-Hungarian occupied Bosnia, which the serbian military faction thought it should belong to Serbia. Basically before condemning Austria too hard for that ultimatum, please do remember that the relationship between the two was already strained to near breaking point. Serbia was the new bully in the region, was constantly making threats as Austria-Hungary and generally was giving Austria-Hungary plenty of reason to want to put it in its place once and for all.

Also, Gavrilo Princip who assassinated the Austrian prince _was_ a Serb and trained by the Serbian militarist faction, along with the other two. Or at the very least the Austrian government was at the time convinced that those are Serbian agents, and not just some anarchistic students. And Princip himself may or may not have been an idealist and just wanting Bosnia to be free, that was not what Serbia really wanted. Serbia only wanted a Bosnia free of the Austrians so _they_ can take it.

Etc.

Basically while technically the Austrian ultimatum did start it, that ultimatum didn't happen in a vaccuum. The world back then was really a very different world than right now.

I know this has been addressed many times before, but it always fascinates me how the people who claim the holocaust was a hoax never have a problem with typing text that clearly promotes irrational hatred toward the Jewish.

The rest of the text is pretty funny too. So basically, if Britain had just supported Germany in it's attempts to conquer most of Europe and Africa for the Aryan master race, enslaving the inferior races in the process, they wouldn't have gone to war and could have ruled the galaxy together. But the foolish half-Jews insisted on defending the rights of their allies, starting the World War. Oh, those evil, evil Jews.

__________________When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.-Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

Far more interesting is how WW1 ended, how America came involved, Versailles, etc. This is where the real controversy will emerge, I predict.

Germany was brought to a strategic collapse due to the royal navy blockade and a general running out of men. This resulted in the begining of a tactical collapse forcing germany into what was effectively an unconditional surrender.

Basically while technically the Austrian ultimatum did start it, that ultimatum didn't happen in a vaccuum. The world back then was really a very different world than right now.

..........Great summing up. Out of curiosity, have you ever read the details of the actual assination? If the Marx Brothers had of used it as the base of one their movies, they would have been considered to have had even greater comedy genius than their reputation already demands

The History of the Balkans is complicated and the network of ambitions and counter-claims following the decline and expulsion of the Ottoman Empire led to numerous small conflicts and border tensions. The Catholic Hapsburg Empire was extending its influence in Bosnia and treading on Serbian sentiment. In truth the Austrians had been looking for a reason to deal with the Serbian issue for some time although the assassination of the Archduke was rather more provocation than they anticipated. The Kaiser was on holiday on his yacht when war broke out.

The network of alliances between Russia and Serbia, France and Russia, Britain and Belgium, Germany and Austria led to a domino effect escalation. However, it was the golden age of Empire and a number of these countries were actually keen to bitch slap each other to enhance their global pecking order place. All were confident it would be over "by Christmas".

WW2

Was born out of the bitter frustration of the Treaty of Versailles on the German side. It was the populist feeling in Germany that they had carried the can for a war that was not of their making. Hitler played on this resentment and his offer of restoration of German pride played well in the beer halls. It is doubtful the Nazi movement would have took off were it not for the impositions of Versailles. As part of the mythology sold by Hitler was that Jews, Communists and Liberals had betrayed Germany in 1918. He preached his polemic and thrived on conspiracy and hatred against these people. So, yes the German Nazi movement started WW2 but WW2 was really just WW1 part deux. If WW1 had played out differently and reparations against Germany less vindictive then it is unlikely the German economy would have failed in the 20s and opened the door to the fanatics and extremists of the Nazis.

Austria-Hungary started the First world war, and Japan started the Second. Neither is in your "starters" list, but this is your mistake, not mine. It could also be argued that Nazi Germany Started the second world war, though.

McHrozni

Given who posted the list, it is quite obvious that this was not a mistake, but intentional. That poster has his the typical Nazi delusions about history, which of course do not permit him to accept that WW1 was started by part of his "Master Race", and that WW2 began halfway around the world. In his mind, there is only space for the Evil Communist Jewish World Conspiracy aimed at destroying his "Master Race".

So who started WW1 and WW2? 'Easy', the average Anglo will say, 'The Germans!'... and he will continue to chew on his bagel and listen to the monotonous rap on his iPod.

Official story v1.0; picture an Anglo guy chewing on gum while saying: Well you see, we have Brits, Yanks, Frogs and Russians basically minding their own business, while all over sudden these darned Krauts tried to conquer the whole world twice. Today Germany, tomorrow ze wurld, you know what I am saying? The second time they killed 6 million Joos in gas chambers and stuff for no reason at all! Can you imagine that? Fortunately the Allies sticked together and taught those evil Germans a lesson. Twice.

Nice stereotyping. That didn't take more than a second of thought whatsoever.

__________________"No man is free to embrace and profess that religion
which he believes to be true, guided by the light of reason."
- 1864 Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX, Vatican Council

#1. The Nazi Germans could have easily reached Palestine and killed the Zionist movement once for all. Why would the Jews take such a chance?

#2. There was no guaruntee the entire Ottoman Empire would collapse. The Ottomans were allowing the Jews to move into Palestine at a steady pace. Why would the Jews mess with such a favorable situation?

The whole idea that "the Jews" are responsible for BOTH WW1 and WW2 is just pathetic and stupid.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.